Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Reproductive Rights: The Abortion Conversation That We Should Be Having
Far too often, I have the nagging feeling that we're having the wrong discussion. About what? Pretty much darned near everything but none more so than the endless pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.
During a recent community conversation in Louisville, KY, Loretta Ross, the National Coordinator of SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective, offered what I think is a far more productive framework for discussing the abortion issue. Ross posits that abortion is only part of the issue of reproductive health and rights, which she points out include not only the right not to have a child but also the right to have a child.
On their website, SisterSong defines reproductive justice as an intersectional theory that integrates reproductive health and social justice emerging from the "experiences of women of color whose communities experience reproductive oppression. It is based on the understanding that the impact on women of color of race, class and gender are not additive but integrative, producing this paradigm of intersectionality." The site also points out that,
"The intersectional theory of Reproductive Justice is described as the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, social, environmental and economic well-being of women and girls, girls, based on the full achievement and protection of women's human rights. It offers a new perspective on reproductive issue advocacy, pointing out that as Indigenous women and women of color it is important to fight equally for (1) the right to have a child; (2) the right not to have a child; and (3) the right to parent the children we have, as well as to control our birthing options, such as midwifery. We also fight for the necessary enabling conditions to realize these rights."
Obviously that language goes far beyond the run-of-the-mill pro/anti abortion rhetoric. By using this framework, we can start to see abortion not as an isolated issue of choice, but part of a far more complex set of issues. And the truth is, despite Roe v. Wade, "choice", like so many other choices is a right of privilege. If you are poor, or live far from a clinic, there is not much of a choice.
Ross also stressed that abortion needs to be seen as a human rights issue and points to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declares the right of every person to live free of slavery. And being forced to bear children is most certainly a form of slavery as Ross is quick to point out.
The flip side of the abortion rights issue, the right to have children is every bit as important a matter within the framework of Reproductive Justice. Although it is an issue in this country, it is even more so in less developed nations that have high maternal mortality rates.
Every year, more than half a million women die of complications of pregnancy and childbirth as a result of economic, cultural and political injustice. More than 99% of those deaths are preventable. Jane Roberts, co-founder of 34 Million Friends of UNFPA, points out that, "Lack of family planning commodities and of health care workers to educate about and furnish family planning to eager consumers is the root cause of the 40 million abortions which take place every year, half of which are risky, illegal, unsafe. If the world really cared for its women, this would not be happening. About 70,000 women die during the abortion or the immediate aftermath, millions more suffer temporary or permanent disability. Then they are "compassionately" offered PAC (post-abortion care) by our government and others."
Yet as a recent U.N. report points out, the "sharp decline in international funding for reproductive health is threatening global efforts to reduce poverty, improve health and empower women worldwide." According to Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of the U.N. Population (UNFPA), "The result is increasing numbers of unwanted pregnancies, rising rates of unsafe abortion, and increased risks to the lives of women and children." Obaid also noted that, "research indicates that ensuring access to family planning alone would reduce maternal deaths by 20 to 35 percent and child deaths by 20 percent."
As Ross points out, it isn't that choice is not an issue, but rather that it is one of many connected reproductive justice issues that need to be addressed. And that is the conversation we should be having.
Lucinda Marshall is a feminist artist, writer and activist. She is the Founder of the Feminist Peace Network, www.feministpeacenetwork.org. Her work has been published in numerous publications in the U.S. and abroad including She also blogs at WIMN Online and writes a monthly column for the Louisville Eccentric Observer, where an earlier version of this essay was originally published.
75 Comments so far
Show AllThis post certainly brought out the regressives.
Animal instinct rules.
In a world where stavation will be an ever increasing reality, bringing unwanted children into this world doesn't seem to make any sense; but then, were're not talking about rational thought.
Please take me seriously when I say I need to consult my two educated sisters to help me understand what the following means because I cannot figure it out:
"On their website, SisterSong defines reproductive justice as an intersectional theory that integrates reproductive health and social justice emerging from the "experiences of women of color whose communities experience reproductive oppression. It is based on the understanding that the impact on women of color of race, class and gender are not additive but integrative, producing this paradigm of intersectionality."
"...SisterSong defines reproductive justice as an intersectional theory that integrates reproductive health and social justice emerging from the "experiences of women of color whose communities experience reproductive oppression. It is based on the understanding that the impact on women of color of race, class and gender are not additive but integrative, producing this paradigm of intersectionality."
I had to re-read that paragraph a few times myself. I think it means:
The movement of "Reproductive Justice" is based on the idea that the oppression of reproductive rights for women of color has many root causes: race, class and gender. Intersectional theory is the theory that where these root causes meet they create impacts that are not easily stratified layers of oppression, but rather combine to create a new system of oppression (the paradigm of intersectionality).
If we work to understand how race, class and gender combine to form a new system of oppression, we can work for a more comprehensive affirmation of women's rights, and especially the right of women to choose.
Juliann:
May I try to explain?
reproductive health care covers all services that women get from an ob/gyn or other health care provider
social justice deals with issues of access to health services: whether economic ability or physical access. in addition, it acknowledges that access to good quality health care is uneven, based on economic class, ethnicity and gender.
a part of the social justice aspect is the specific acknowledgement that historically, women of color have had our choices limited for various reasons: most especially when it comes to having children. this history leads to a divergence of opinion between White and Black american women on the issue of abortion. Black women tend to want to deal with health care access/social justice issues; whereas, many White women view it exclusively as a reproductive choice issue (without reference to the social justice aspects).
In my view, this still leads to much common ground between White and Black women, but the ptb are much interested in making sure that our differences outweigh the similarities.
thanks for listening,
Peace,
CS
There are a lot of definitions included in the following quote:
(Who)
Who said it?
Loretta Ross, the National Coordinator of SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective,
(Where)
(In) "the endless pro-life vs. pro-choice debate".
(What)
What is it?
Intersectional theory of Reproductive Justice = "the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, social, environmental and economic well-being of women and girls, girls, based on the full achievement and protection of women's human rights."
What does it do?
"Integrates reproductive health and social justice"
(Why)
Why is it necessary?
(The) "experiences of women of color whose communities experience reproductive oppression."
(How)
(By) "understanding that the impact on women of color of race, class and gender are not additive but integrative, producing this paradigm of intersectionality."
It is said far more simply here.
"By using this framework, we can start to see abortion not as an isolated issue of choice, but part of a far more complex set of issues".
.
(When) A question not answered.
Definitely an issue for women of color, even those women colored white.
My problem with all of this comes down to what is NOT discussed: the need for zero or better yet, negative population growth. Every crisis we face, food shortages, oil, water, disparity in incomes, slave labor, opression - we can begin to solve some of this through negative population growth!! I am FOR more abortions, not less. I don't see it as a bad choice; I don't buy the "less abortions, but keep them legal" logic.
Nothing wrong with the less abortions, but keep them legal logic.
The decision to have a child or not have a child is an infinitely personal one. To pretend otherwise is foolish.
I know I may be misunderstood for this question but I truly would like to know if pro abortion people care or are concerned about the life of the unborn child? Why is the mother's life more important than the unborn baby's life? Babies are alive inside the womb and are viable little humans, why do they not have a basic right to life as any other human? I have usually avoided this issue with pro abortion people but since I have become a democrat this year I am honestly wanting to understand your position but I know I am not the only pro life democrat. I would appreciate your honesty.
Junna-I know of no one (besides one of the above posters) who is acutally pro-"abortion". To me that term connotes doing away with all pregnancies, which seems ridiculous and irresponsible.
"I know I may be misunderstood for this question but I truly would like to know if pro abortion people care or are concerned about the life of the unborn child?"
Yes, I care. I gave birth to daughters whom I love with every fiber of my being and loved them from the moment I knew I was pregnant. Not everyone is equipped or ready. Sometimes birth control fails. Sometimes women are raped or develop life threatening medical conditions. There are too many "sometimes" or "What ifs" for me to not want safe access. And I am not equipped to tell someone else what to do.
My response to folks who are completely against this choice is then don't have one.
Junna -- I feel that abortion shouldn't be an option except in extreme circumstances, but that it is the MOTHER who decides what those circumstances are, not the law. I am GREATLY in favor of birth control. Your argument is perfectly logical and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If you are carrying a healthy fetus and there are pros and cons to keeping it, and your heart tells you it is wrong to kill it, then you do what you must to carry it to term and make a good life for it. That is a moral and ethical position of which you can rightly be proud. The baby is indeed a person. This is a point on which the pro-choice people sometimes have problems. I understand that if I choose to abort a child, I am depriving a new human being of life. Period.
I know it's part of the mantra, but I would abort a pregnancy that was the result of rape. Many women would not, and I admire the strength such women show, but I couldn't do it myself.
If I were carrying a baby with birth defects I would abort without a second thought. The world is already hugely overpopulated, and a defective child takes great time and resources and I am not willing to give either. I have my own work and I would not sacrifice it all to care for such a child. There would be no joy in it, and I have no silly religious scruples to make me think it's "God's will" that I waste my time raising such a child.
The abortion debate isn't black and white. I see nothing noble in raising a child you know before hand is going to be deformed, or worse, mentally retarded. If my life were at risk I would abort because I make the value judgment that my life, already full of rich experiences and being used for what I deem to be positive and contributing purposes, is worth more than the potential of the child I am carrying. If I abort a genius (which is possible) -- well, that is a price I am willing to pay. Perhaps you would decide the other way, and choose to carry the child to term at risk to your own life. That would be your value judgment to make, and it would be just as valid as mine. That's what ethics are all about. You have yours, I have mine.
That being said, I will admit that though I am past the age of bearing children I would have automatically aborted any fetus had I ever become pregnant. I have a genetic condition which the doctors said I had a 98% chance of passing on to my children. I had myself sterilized as soon as I reached my 21st birthday (I was sexually active from the age of 17, and I used birth control pills till reaching 21). I would not have even thought twice had the pills failed me and I had become pregnant. To me it would have been the height of insanity to put a child at risk. Even though there are new medications available, the condition is hard to live with.
I too am a democrat, and I think of myself as pro-life, but to me that means sometimes one is pro-the mother's life, and sometimes one is pro-the fetus' life. It really does depend on the circumstances, the personalities involved, the values at stake, whether adoption would be an option if you simply cannot bear to abort a new little person, and so forth. I know that if I were a normal person (i.e. without this genetic problem) each brush with pregnancy would be a true ethical and moral situation requiring thought and discussion with my husband (who did not want children). The issue is truly worth all the thought you can give it. Too many people dismiss abortion by saying NEVER!!!!! or ALWAYS!!!! Abortion is much more complex than that.
Ladies: reproductive rights have to do with women not only having choices, but the means to exercise those choices. It is called respect. IF the governments of the world (run mostly by men for the benefit of men) would spend some money on women (besides what they spend trying to get laid) and their needs, abortion would be almost unheard of. I don't believe for one minute that women get pregnant just to have the experience of having an abortion. Education is also the key. It seems educating women about their bodies, their choices and the services available to them, undercuts men's control of women's lives. We still have a long way to go - getting a new, women-respectful President will help.
Just another intellectual rationalization for abortion and death. The left has lost it's soul.
Sincere thanks to all of you - and for helping me understand the point of this article. In the early 1990s I was a volunteer at the Planned Parenthood in Denver. I was responsible for calling women who had abnormal PAP results, to schedule them to come in for further cancer screening. I never met a pro-abortion person in my life. This particular Planned Parenthood location worked with 3 Denver adoption agencies (all of which were pro choice) and encouraged young pregnant women (some in their teens) to consider adopting out the child, not to just abort. The PP location in Denver where abortions were held occasionally serviced women who were anti-choice, and who admitted to one doctor that once healed, she would be back out front protesting abortion!!!! There is a doctor in Boulder CO who had many anti-choice women come to his clinic from out of state, for their abortions, only to return to their state to once again take up the anti-choice placard.
The nurse-midwife in charge of the clinic where I volunteered always spoke of "women taking care of women." Wish that it were so - and that ALL women had the healthcare of every category that they need.
Blessings to all.
Doom n Gloom - if that is your definition of "losing one's soul" - what do you say about those on the right who support abortion rights and HAVE abortions? Classic case was Bob Barr, anti-choice, whose exwife testified in their divorce case that he drove her to the clinic for an abortion.
The right is full of hypocrites. The left tells it like it is.
Well, most of the time.
There's a difference between a potential baby and a baby. An embryo is a potential baby and most embryos will not make it anyway because Mother Nature often fails in her constructions. Early terminations just save the Old Broad some work.
I still can't believe this defense for the Nazi ideology of abortion.
Junna People like you must think that there is a trade off since when must a woman trade in her life for another life unless she herself is willing to do so. I certainly dont think it is fair for anyone to play god. By telling me my life is over just because I am pregnant. Since when do we decide who lives and dies. God gave man the free will to answer for their own morality. The christian faith never said anything about abortion or that woman she give of their live in lieu of a baby. Nor can i find any scriptures in the bible that equates a human with a fetus. Pro-life people have conjured up their own language for mostly reasons I dont understand. For one I would like to know where does Junna get her ideas since their is nothing out there that say these things. Plus there are cultures and other religions that see life different then you do. There is no such thing as one person or a religion holding the truth. Please if you dont like abortions then dont have one but dont measure your morality with someone else there is no way you can do that. It is not for people to judge others for something they have the right to think and feel for themselves. Ask me this these pro-life woman have had numerous abortions themselves why not point out the hypocrisy of these woman?
This sentence from SisterSong statement needs a re-write. "It is based on the understanding that the impact on women of color of race, class and gender are not additive but integrative, producing this paradigm of intersectionality."
I think I agree, based on the passage that follows which simply says that people need to have real possibilities either to have a child, not to have a child, and to be able to care for children they do have. I think they are saying that social statuses of various kinds (race, class) limit women's actual choice.
Abortion is a sad choice. Nobody is pro-abortion. Some who choose to have abortions are in dire straits or do so in order to better care for children they already have. But abortion is the worst form of family planning.
The number of abortions can be greatly reduced by education and access to contraception, by promoting the right of women and girls to say no to sex, by making adoption easier and by guaranteeing help to young families who have children and are not able to support them in a healthful way.
However if despite all precautions and assurances, any woman or girl becomes pregnant and does not feel prepared to have a child, it is better for everyone that she should be able to terminate the pregnancy without becoming a criminal or risking her life.
Junna,
Like the other posters have told you, I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion." What we are is pro *legal* abortion, and pro-choice -- we want women to have the legal option to have a safe abortion.
The reason we are pro legal abortion is that the alternative -- when abortion is illegal -- has too high a price for women and children. Prohibiting abortion will not prevent it from ever occurring -- abortion has been taking place since women have been able to be pregnant. When abortion is illegal, women get unsafe, unsanitary abortions some of the time, and for us, this is totally unacceptable. It's not a question of whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong -- it's a question about whether or not forcing women to get illegal abortions is right or wrong, and we have decided that one woman harmed, maimed, or killed by an illegal abortion is too much.
Personally, I believe in the mantra "Every child wanted and nurtured." I'm not convinced that our society truly values children -- if it did, like another poster said, we as a society would spend much more money on our mothers and children. Imagine a world in which teen pregnancy does not end a young mother's hope for a career -- in which child-care providers are honored, and compensated, as the stewards of our future -- in which the truth about reproduction and tools for controlling reproduction are made available safely, effectively, and freely to all men and women who care so much about children that they want to make the best choice possible -- in that world, abortion would truly be rare.
Dr. Carolyn Westhoff testified, "In the dismemberment D&E…it is necessary to insert our forceps…and then crush the head." (National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft, April 2004, US District Court, Southern District of New York).
TextGuru - very good post. Thank you.
By the way, I know someone whose sister is a nun. She told me that among the nuns, those who work in communities favor legal abortion. Those who work in convents oppose legal abortions. This is andecdotal, but interesting.
I am pro-abortion!! I think we have to get away from this idiotic thinking that it is somehow immoral or a "bad" thing. There are lots of human beings who simply are not and can never be good parents! I'm adopted and it has a major impact on adoptees' lives. AND we need to consider the needs of the planet and future generations. We need to have negative population growth policies in order for us to actually continue as a human race.
Reproductive choice begins long before the issue of abortion. It is in the heart of every woman and man and every society. I would listen to the christian based pro-life side if they had any integrity, if they hadn't sterlized non-white christian people, if they supported life after birth. Reproductive choice is learned and these empty debates have no human substance...just propaganda about who is good or bad and who can follow someone else's heart and learn to like it.
Should parents of kids aslready born who are found out to be disabled have the right to end their live?As a person with cerebal palsey I vote no.
Again, men have been left out of this discussion. Men need to be sexually responsible. Since all pregnancies are caused by men, men are the cause of all abortions. Men have no right to control women with their nilly willies!
The abortion conversations we "should" be having are about 1) How we're going to pressure men to be more responsible in the first place about not impregnating women to whom they are not married, and 2) How we're going to be sure every woman who needs "Plan B" after-the-fact contraceptive can absolutely get it WHEN she needs it with no hassle whatsoever.
With those two efforts there will be a lot less potential abortions to be having other conversations about.
I've often wondered why, if the right-to-lifers are so against abortion, they don't put all that negative energy they use on the issue to work to find an acceptable - not the stupid "abstinence only" crap - solution to prevent pregnancies in the first place. More so since the faux christians have mandated exactly when life begins, and making the birth control pill the same as abortion.
Rich Griffin: Interesting post about some people not having the capacity to be good parents. I definitely agree that this is a big problem now. And it's going to get even bigger when the large numbers of autistic children now being born (155 of every 1,000 - 15%, not counting those with Ausberger's Syndrome) start experimenting with sex.
My 13-yr-old autistic nephew will likely impregnate a few girls because his parents, who are some of the 'not equipped,' WILL NOT take him in for a vasectomy (against God's will and all that rot). Can my nephew, or the girls he impregnates, parent a child? Not on your life! And what about his parents - will they suddenly change from 'not equipped' parents to 'well equipped' grandparents? Not likely.
Just like every other crisis from global climate change to war to the economy to overpopulation, it's going to get worse before it gets better.
I don't think that Austism is a genetic disease that is transfered from parent to child. The rate increase is thought to be related to human interaction and the environment. In that regard, anyone planning a pregnancy should take it into consideration.
In a recent conversation with my mother, she pointed out that when you are in the throes of labor it becomes very clear that no matter how supportive or involved your man is, you are doing it alone. I think that is why it is ultimately a womens issue. Once pregnancy happens, dudes get to choose whether or not to participate, ladies do not.
Also I do not buy this "life is sacred, protect the fetus" crap. If life is so sacred, why are we in the business of mass murder over seas? If life is so sacred, why is conservation of the environment such a struggle? Why do we eat meat? Geez.
The fear of abortion is rooted in Christian ideology that blames Eve for the fall of humanity and claims that she has been punished for her sins with the pain of childbirth! This is the same ideology that resulted in the slaughter of millions of women all over Europe for being witches! Witches translated: healers. There was a time when womens knowledge of birth control and abortion was kept among women and included the use of herbs. We don't know what those herbs are anymore. Hell, most of us ladies do not even know what cycle the moon is in! or when we are ovulating!
SOrry, this stuff just goes so deep, and it makes me really angry- our intrinsic knowledge of life and death as women has been beaten out of us to the point where we don't remember that we ever had it to begin with. I think any person who has the ability to make a new life is automatically qualified to make decisions surrounding that life. This anti-choice rhetoric is in essence about oppressing women and robbing them of their self-determination.
Junna,
I appreciate your courage and honesty and hope that those who have responded have been helpful to you. I'd like to weigh in. Those of us who are pro-choice (not "pro-abortion" - the first step toward understanding people you disagree with is not believing the hype) often wonder why so-called "pro-life" people don't seem to care about the life of the already-born, fully mature woman! I have heard preached from the pulpit of my church the notion that women seek abortions because being pregnant is "inconvenient." What sexist crap! Most women who seek abortion are in situations most white middle-class folks can't even imagine: desperate, trapped, faced with a short list of bad options. Sometimes the most responsible thing to do is NOT bring a child into the world.
I find it interesting that the states that have the most restrictive abortion laws also have the worst records on child welfare. So, do even "pro-life" people care about the life of the child? Or are they only interested in controlling women's sexuality and making sure that every child conceived gets born? It seems to me that a lot of "pro-life" rhetoric involves white middle-class men identifying with the fetus and ignoring the rights and needs of the woman.
It may surprise you to learn that I am Roman Catholic. Abortion is tragic, but recriminalization is worse: it punishes people who have been punished enough. I am on the side of people who call themselves "pro-choice" because they are the ones who are addressing the underlying problems that lead to abortion: sexism and poverty. When men don't feel like they have the right to have sex with a woman because they bought her dinner, and when nobody has to choose between groceries and rent, abortion won't be necessary anymore.
Junna, good on you for becoming a Democrat, because the number of abortions in this country has actually increased under Bush. Why? Because his economic policies have driven more people to the brink.
'Nuff said.
Who has the right to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy? Do you?
TreeFrog: My comment about today's autistic kids being tomorrow's parents had nothing to with the passing of the disability from parent to child (although there is a genetic component to disability). My comment was about the parenting skills of people with autism. My experience with my nephew and others with autism is that they don't have the ability to emotionally connect with their own feelings, let alone with other human beings.
My nephew doesn't have the capacity to be a good parent. He should not be one. That's my point, which was also Rich Griffin's point.
TruOrange
I understand that, I have worked with disabled adults for a long time. I have sat on human rights committees on this very issue. There are different levels of autism and there is a range of possibility for consenting adults. It is a basic human right, it is an essential part of life as a basic human need. The people that I worked with had been institutionalized, most of them anyway.
GKL -- Exactly.
Short of immaculate conception, which seems to be pretty rare, pregnancy involves guess what ?
A man !
And guess what else ? The egg doesn't go out impregnating the sperm ! Wow ! It's the other way around ! What a concept !
It's so amazing to me, that men seem to think their sperms are DEAD upon ejection. Unless they happen to find a fertile egg, which somehow makes the EGG responsible. Come again ?
I would like to see a world where men have more respect for their own reproductive capabilities.
And by that I don't mean taking several wives and having herds of children, that is not honor.
Tru Orange
One thing I can tell you is that autism does not repress sexuality and it does put some people at risk for exploitation but there are people that specialize in working with individuals with special needs.
A lot of this article strikes me as overintellectual hooey. The reality about abortion is this: There are plenty of people on both the left and the right that can swing either way on this issue, and its understandable.
So, the real question is, why keep fighting a fight no one is ever going to win? Can everyone agree that fewer abortions, across the board, is a good goal? I think we can all agree on that. So why not put funding into things that help make it so that more women can keep their children.
I've always been heavy duty pro-choice, but recently had occasion to come close to an abortion clinic. I've never felt a greater sense of palpable evil than what I felt emanating from that building. Yeah, Ok. That's about as unscientific as it gets, but its what I felt.
Does that make me pro-life, no, I still think its a complex issue. But it certainly gives me pause to think.
Would you have rather been aborted? Then do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
Reason you dont want a pregnancy:
1. just plain dont want a baby
2. cant support a baby
3. it will endanger your health
Solutions:
1. dont have sex or use a condom
2. put the child up for adoption
3. it is never right to take a life to save one.
notice abortion isnt in the list of solutions.
brontoburger,
Excellent post!
You hit the nail on the head:
ABORTION IS MURDER!
p.s.
a fetus has measurable heart beats and brain waves while in the womb. This has been proven
It sounds like life to me.
Why do human beings seem to think that only human babies are miracles? This continues to baffle me. Babies are not miracles. Period. They are the result of two people having sex. Those two people could be the stupidest people on Earth, but guess what, they could most likely conceive a child.... But CAN THEY RAISE A CHILD?? Look at the world folks. How many people here have spent much time in a Children's hospital? Seen the harm that these parents do to their "miracles"? And who pays for all of them, yet doesn't have a say in how these children are raised or fed?
No, babies are a result of sex; there are billions of people on Earth- Not miraculous. Anyone who says that "all babies have a right to life" have no understanding of poverty, and what the "life" will be like. I for one am tired of seeing, paying for, and living with the consequence of utterly irresponsible people having children they have no ability to take care of.
...And until that baby can survive OUTSIDE of a woman's body- she should be free to do whatever the hell she wants to do. Responsible procreation in all realms is of course the ideal... but until that become reality- Abortion is absolutely an ethical choice.
Women have an inbuilt urge to reproduce - they generally want babies.
If this wanting gives a woman a "right" to have babies, does it also give men a right to get laid?
I must admit that the attempt at rebranding "killing an unborn child" (abortion) as "Reproductive Choice" is quite creative, but it doesn't shield our ears from the cries of the unborn.
This article is a great example of the impermanence of the whole 'human rights' schtick, it essentially proves that 'human rights' are essentially baseless, standing on nothing, there is no foundation. Human rights...? What can be most basic than the right to life...? I can only wonder when people will realise that the lax doctrine of 'human rights' is simply an empty Left-wing rhetorical tool for demanding its own way (as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon tradition of liberties secured by laws limiting the power of the state).
From the article - "being forced to bear children is most certainly a form of slavery"
I would agree with this sentence if the government was forcibly impregnating women and forcing them to give birth to the baby... but to say that having to accept the consequences of one's own reckless and irresponsible sexual exploits is slavery is a joke. Actions have consequences. Don't want kids? Don't have sex. Simple.
As for the "I support legal abortion because back-street illegal abortions are dangerous" argument... today in the UK, 200,000 babies are aborted each year. Are you saying that prior to the passing of the Abortion Act, 200,000 women were getting illegal and dangerous abortions? They certainly were not. Legal abortion means much more abortion, very few women died from backstreet abortions. I would wager that more women (total) die or are seriously injured from abortion now, than did prior to the legalisation.
Of course, this should not just affect the woman (or girl) involved, the man (or boy) is equally culpable and should be forced by the state to pay child support until the child is 18.
http://rebelconservative.blogspot.com
The pro life argument that it is wrong to take one life to save another is not consistantly applied. Why is it heroic to sacrifice
full grown adults so that my "freedom" can be maintained? Aren't these adult soldiers miracles, lives to be cherished? Why is it ok to bomb and kill men, women and children in other countries because we need their oil? Aren't these people precious in the sight of God too? Does the sacredness of life end at birth? War is even more destructive of human life than abortion. War pollutes our souls. I would make this compromise. Make both war and abortion illegal.
rebel_conservative:
Re: your statement "Legal abortion means much more abortion, very few women died from backstreet abortions. I would wager that more women (total) die or are seriously injured from abortion now, than did prior to the legalisation."
Back that up with numbers and concrete facts rather than a measly "wager" and then we (pro-choicers) will remotely consider believing you.
It angers me that so many pro-life arguments tend to digress into intuitive (read: WRONG) assumptions and snap judgements such as these which are entirely illogical once you take the time needed to think through the issue at hand in a more coherent way. This attitude smacks of the same religion-based moralizing entailing an implicit acceptance of things that are utterly wrong or unproveable (i.e. a childs life is worth more than a mother's, babies are miracles, before abortion was legal it barely happened, women have an inbuilt urge to reproduce, etc).
It makes me sick. Our bodies belong to us, and us alone and, as mothers or otherwise, we are perfectly capable of making responsible decisions regarding the choice to have a child or get an abortion.
UNDERCOVER REPUBLICAN (Are you?) Makes good points about the patriarchy's willful attack on women of knowledge and power in its effort to control blood lines and repress women's rights.
GKL: Good points.
The U.S. is a PRO-DEATH society as seen in its primitive incarceration rate & choice to prolong "legal" murder by the state; and then there's that little thing called the military industrial complex. This nation is spending more on the machinery of death and killing than all other nations combined! Surely there is no basis for any moral high ground. It's always seemed to me (the Nazis pulled this stunt, too) that the more militaristic a society, the more it embraces its right to kill, the more it will use the premise of "right to life" to suppress women and place abortion at the seat of its hosannas. As someone said in this forum, the anti-abortion people who tend to support war (for religious purposes!) perhaps just require more live targets to eventually shoot at. That appears to suit the logic.
SisterSong seems infatuated with important sounding words.
But apart from that, what about a right not to conceive babies accidentally, or without having a framework of support with the other half of the conception; or because it's the path of least resistance to the public trough.
This 'manifesto' is not what is needed for any answer to personal, social, or global population issues.
Partial Birth Abortion
Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton, Ohio, assisted Dr. Haskell in a Partial Birth Abortion on a 26-1/2 week (over 6 months) pre-born baby boy. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee (on 11/17/95) about what she witnessed. According to nurse Shafer, the baby was alive and moving as the abortionist "delivered the baby's body and arms - everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp."
With forceps, the doctor turns the baby around in the womb to be positioned feet first. The baby's legs are pulled out into the birth canal. The baby is alive at this point. .
The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head, which remains inside the birth canal. The baby's hands and feet move
The abortionist stabs the scissors into the base of the baby's skull. The scissors are spread to enlarge the opening. The suction catheter is then inserted and the brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The head slides out easily.
ARE THE BABIES ALIVE DURING THE ABORTION?
Yes! On July 11, 1995, American Medical News (AMA's official journal) submitted the transcript of a tape-recorded interview with abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell to the House Judiciary Committee in which he admitted: "...the majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure."
------------------------
Second Trimester D&E Abortion
"The procedure changes significantly at 21 weeks because the fetal tissues become much more cohesive and difficult to dismember. This problem is accentuated by the fact that the fetal pelvis may be as much as 5cm in width. The calvaria [head] is no longer the principal problem; it can be collapsed. Other structures, such as the pelvis, present more difficulty….A long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus…" (From the medical textbook Abortion Practice – Dr. Warren Hern, p.154)
***
"The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely re-moved." (US Supreme Court, Gonzales vs. Carhart, April 18, 2007, describing the D&E procedure).
***
"Let's just say for instance we took a different view, a different tact and we left the leg in the uterus just to dismember it. Well, we'd probably have to dismember it at several different levels because we don't have firm control over it, so we would attack the lower part of the lower extremity first, remove, you know, possibly a foot, then the lower leg at the knee and then finally we get to the hip."
"And typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we're making our initial grasps or if we're using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we're starting the procedure. It's not unusual at the start of D&E procedures that a limb is acquired first and that that limb is brought through the cervix and even out of the vagina prior to disarticulation and prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise up to that point."
"When you're doing a dismemberment D&E, usually the last part to be removed is the skull itself and it's floating free inside the uterine cavity…So it's rather like a ping-pong ball floating around and the surgeon is using his forcep to reach up to try to grasp something that's freely floating around and is quite large relative to the forcep we're using. So typically there's several misdirections, misattempts to grasp. Finally at some point either the instruments are managed to be place around the skull or a nip is made out of some area of the skull that allows it to start to decompress. And then once that happens typically the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece…" (Sworn testimony given in US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison, WI, May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S), by Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist. He describes legal activity.)
brontoburger,
LOL !!
You're making them pro-choicers look silly!
Seriously, I thank you for providing some truth in this forum of nonsense. Keep it coming.
I find it quite humorous to see the pro-choice camp splutter and mumble when we show them the cold hard facts about abortion.
brontoburger, you've convinced me -- I won't have an abortion. Wait -- I was already planning not to have an abortion.
I can sense from your posts that you feel passionate about abortion. However, you have not offered a public policy option to help us, as a society, deal with the phenomenon of abortion.
I feel that often pro-life and pro-choice advocates talk at cross-purposes. Many times, pro-life advocates want to discuss *when life begins,* because they think that if they can prove that life begins at conception or some time soon thereafter, then abortion can be demonstrated to be murder -- the taking of life.
Pro-choice advocates want to discuss the negative consequences of illegal abortions. They want to prove that when abortion is illegal, it still happens, but it is much less safe, especially for poor women. Making abortion illegal is not an effective deterrent to abortion, and it creates situations that are harmful to women and children.
Demonstrating the moment when life begins is not a public policy issue. The meaning of "life" is not something about which we, as a society, have consensus. Many people define life according to religious doctrine -- but according to our Constitution, we cannot enforce a state religion. We are a secular society. Until we can agree as a society, unequivocally, about when life begins based on principles that are seen to either transcend or underly any religion, we cannot claim that the moment when life begins is a public policy issue.
Making abortion legal or illegal is a public policy issue. When abortion is legal, citizens are free to try to convince one another that individual women should or should not have abortions. Citizens may debate the merits of abortion, and how it fits into our society. Citizens are free to obtain safe abortions. But when abortion is illegal, citizens do not have the choice to obtain safe, legal abortions. Women and fetuses will be harmed, and maybe killed. It is much harder for citizens to debate the merits of abortion and form life-positive public policy, for fear of prosecution.
So what public policy solution do you recommend? Should we arrest women and physicians who perform abortions, if abortion were illegal? Would that prevent abortions? Would that improve conditions for children after they have been born?
I'm convinced that abortion as you describe it is destructive -- but I think public policy that prohibits abortion is more destructive. We should work together to form a society that values all life, from the mysterious moment when it begins, until the lamentable hour when it ends.
So unless a public policy that you feel comfortable with exists than we should continue to murder the human being in the womb through all 9 months of pregnancy (or even after if you an infanticide supporter like Obama)?